So a couple of things we should do as there are now several of us making new maps/edits.
- Submit the new map, with its own thread for submission.
- We will have the Wrecking Crew, which are Admins and anyone else who wants to test out maps (Anon, Rhamp, SubZero -- all either have made maps and/or expressed interest in helping), and we should put maps through a review process before releasing.
So we would
1. Review with the Wrecking Crew: Map Design, Map Balance, Any glitches/issues, and play ability.
2. Adjust map as needed with that feedback.
3. Once reviewed and approved by consensus, we will put it in general play.
A couple of benefits:
- We keep maps that have issues of general play rotation
- Newer maps get a few plays, and if they aren't right, they get unpopular, even if subsequent edits fix many of the issues, but the "brand" is ruined (I have more than few of those)
- Better quality of maps vs. quantity.
Thoughts?
PS. We don't need this for simple fixes to existing maps, just for new edits on substantially new maps/edits.
Map Development Process
-
pooty
- Posts: 6557
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
- Location: Florida
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
-
Rhamp
- Posts: 535
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2023 9:15 pm
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
Sounds good, but there are some things that can only really be tested in actual play. Also, it'll be difficult to come up with an objective criteria that everyone can agree on for a map to meet in order to be put in general play. I get a lot of shit for my HSHRandomizer, yet it is played almost every night and is my favorite map to play on. It definitely had to be toned down a bit over the time its been out, but the fine tuning wouldn't have been possible without it being in general play. I think for when a new map is submitted, unless there is something glaringly wrong that we all agree needs to be fixed, it should be added with the -TEST suffix so that everyone knows that the map probably won't be balanced as well as the rest. Once its fine tuned enough that most of the complaints have been addressed, then it can drop the suffix. Or if during play, we all agree that there is no way in hell the map will work without a major rework, then it can be removed until a revised version is ready. Going back to the mappack idea, maybe having a day where the available maps are only the newer maps could help with the ruined "brand" that pooty mentioned. This seemed to of happened with my Hyperblast map, as it was originally problematic with the node layout and the blinding effect of the hyperspace tunnel, but now is quite fun if your team knows what they are doing, yet isn't voted very often. I had probably my most fun game on the server playing with Enyo scraping out a victory on that map.
-
Enyo
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:27 pm
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: No
Re: Map Development Process
I admit I didn’t read a single word of this for one reason… have you ever heard of paragraphs? Please people, organized your thoughts a little better than how you play.Rhamp wrote: ↑Fri Apr 12, 2024 4:10 pm Sounds good, but there are some things that can only really be tested in actual play. Also, it'll be difficult to come up with an objective criteria that everyone can agree on for a map to meet in order to be put in general play. I get a lot of shit for my HSHRandomizer, yet it is played almost every night and is my favorite map to play on. It definitely had to be toned down a bit over the time its been out, but the fine tuning wouldn't have been possible without it being in general play. I think for when a new map is submitted, unless there is something glaringly wrong that we all agree needs to be fixed, it should be added with the -TEST suffix so that everyone knows that the map probably won't be balanced as well as the rest. Once its fine tuned enough that most of the complaints have been addressed, then it can drop the suffix. Or if during play, we all agree that there is no way in hell the map will work without a major rework, then it can be removed until a revised version is ready. Going back to the mappack idea, maybe having a day where the available maps are only the newer maps could help with the ruined "brand" that pooty mentioned. This seemed to of happened with my Hyperblast map, as it was originally problematic with the node layout and the blinding effect of the hyperspace tunnel, but now is quite fun if your team knows what they are doing, yet isn't voted very often. I had probably my most fun game on the server playing with Enyo scraping out a victory on that map.
I think furious rabbit alluded to this, our American public school system on full display.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
― Mark Twain
-
pooty
- Posts: 6557
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
- Location: Florida
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
So before we get into a debate on proper forum grammar...
Plus I do think we have a fickle audience... they like what they like. The more on spamfests (MassD for one) vs. maps where you have to be more strategic.
So
1. Review with the Wrecking Crew: Map Design, Map Balance, Any glitches/issues, and play ability.
2. Adjust map as needed with that feedback.
3. Once reviewed and approved by consensus, we will put it in general play with -TEST label for public feedback, and they players should know that this is a work in progress.
It would be nice too to have a "TEST" session where all the maps played that night are of the newer edits for feedback. You can always play JY tomorrow!
Yes 100%. I think of this as the "another set of eyes" on a map. Even offline someone else besides the mapper coming into it will likely think of different ways to play the map. Think of that as first review. We also could even schedule some play testing time, off hours where a few of the volunteers work though some things. The hope here is for mappers it doesn't take 8 revisions (or more) to get it to where it needs to be.Sounds good, but there are some things that can only really be tested in actual play. Also, it'll be difficult to come up with an objective criteria that everyone can agree on for a map to meet in order to be put in general play
Plus I do think we have a fickle audience... they like what they like. The more on spamfests (MassD for one) vs. maps where you have to be more strategic.
So
1. Review with the Wrecking Crew: Map Design, Map Balance, Any glitches/issues, and play ability.
2. Adjust map as needed with that feedback.
3. Once reviewed and approved by consensus, we will put it in general play with -TEST label for public feedback, and they players should know that this is a work in progress.
It would be nice too to have a "TEST" session where all the maps played that night are of the newer edits for feedback. You can always play JY tomorrow!
-
pooty
- Posts: 6557
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
- Location: Florida
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
So after some thought and discussion we are going to stick to this process for all maps (even ones I make).
I am going to pull some of the maps that don't fit what we want on the server. (OP spamfests).
I think the Spammiest we will keep is AJY-Rando and Minus-KS rando, both are large enough (and long lived) to stay.
We truly appreciate all the mapping efforts, and would love for any and all interested to continue, but we need to follow this process. And I certainly know the untold hours spent mapping -- lets make it worthwhile!
I think its important that as we work on new maps (and vehicles -- which there's a set of guidelines already and are easier to tweak), that before we release, we get play testing. Some folks have expressed interest in helping -- you don't have to be a tech geek or a coder, just play the map offline and share thoughts. As hard as the quirky Unreal Editor is, play testing is even harder with just yourself. So I know there's several folks who have strong feelings on what's playable... please step up. I think we can set a poll on "Is it ready for general play?"
And what makes a "good" map?
- Balanced play on both sides, asymmetrical maps are much harder (but not impossible) to balance
- Good node layout, generally avoid single choke points.
- Balanced vehicle loadouts, too many is just as bad as too few. Any map where one player, even a top player, can "run the table" needs to have a counter
- Overall strategy vs. charge, flail, respawn, repeat (although there will be some of that).
- Foot based mostly vs. Vehicle IMO are fine. Stock Goliath becomes a bit beastly without all the other higher powered vehicles....
I am going to pull some of the maps that don't fit what we want on the server. (OP spamfests).
I think the Spammiest we will keep is AJY-Rando and Minus-KS rando, both are large enough (and long lived) to stay.
We truly appreciate all the mapping efforts, and would love for any and all interested to continue, but we need to follow this process. And I certainly know the untold hours spent mapping -- lets make it worthwhile!
I think its important that as we work on new maps (and vehicles -- which there's a set of guidelines already and are easier to tweak), that before we release, we get play testing. Some folks have expressed interest in helping -- you don't have to be a tech geek or a coder, just play the map offline and share thoughts. As hard as the quirky Unreal Editor is, play testing is even harder with just yourself. So I know there's several folks who have strong feelings on what's playable... please step up. I think we can set a poll on "Is it ready for general play?"
And what makes a "good" map?
- Balanced play on both sides, asymmetrical maps are much harder (but not impossible) to balance
- Good node layout, generally avoid single choke points.
- Balanced vehicle loadouts, too many is just as bad as too few. Any map where one player, even a top player, can "run the table" needs to have a counter
- Overall strategy vs. charge, flail, respawn, repeat (although there will be some of that).
- Foot based mostly vs. Vehicle IMO are fine. Stock Goliath becomes a bit beastly without all the other higher powered vehicles....
-
pooty
- Posts: 6557
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
- Location: Florida
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
Making this a sticky.
New Maps will be reviewed before they are placed on the server. This will likely slow down new maps and that's ok. We want to make sure new maps, especially with new vehicles get adaquetly tested before playing.
We also have too many maps in the list that makes it hard to find and vote for somethign before the vote is well underway.... some less popular and/or broken maps will be archived for later updates.
First I'll start with a Vision:
The goal is to have maps that are playable, require a bit of teamwork and strategy, don't end up in pure spamfests (except say for SpamBox!). Preserve some of the classic Favorites, as well as newer Favorites and add new content that "fits". Maps can be vehicle heavy (Minus), or more infantry based (Masterbath)
What doesn't fit?
- Maps that are OP vehicle spamfests. The goal here is not to turn this into a spammy server (eg. RMD/MIA, and my apologies to those servers they have a different style of play than what we want here..).
- Maps that are overrun by a single player or single vehicle (think Omega on Torlan).
- Maps where comebacks are pretty much impossible no matter the palyers/vehicle loadout
- Maps that stalemate, that are nearly impossible to get to the core.
- Maps that have "technical" glitches or too many exploits
And what makes a "good" map?
- Balanced play on both sides, asymmetrical maps are much harder (but not impossible) to balance
- Good node layout, generally avoid single choke points, at least one "cutoff" is good.
- Balanced vehicle loadouts, too many is just as bad as too few. Any map where one player, even a top player, can "run the table" needs to have a counter
- Overall strategy vs. charge, flail, respawn, repeat (although there will be some of that).
- Foot based mostly vs. Vehicle IMO are fine. Stock Goliath becomes a bit beastly without all the other higher powered vehicles....
- Teamwork vs. individual play (LinkerMadness is good example of teamwork winning vs. just 1 great player owning the map).
With respect to vehicles -- thoughtful placement/configs:
- Too many is just as bad or worse than too few. Cores should have 8-14 vehicles (Give Rides!) More than 12 should be a careful decision, too many leads to never ending stream--can be addressed with spwan times. Nodes should have 5 or less. Vehicles are strategic and there should be NO guarantee that you don't run out of vehicles, and it should be possible for the other team to kill your power vehicles (eg. Mino) and begin the ass whooping.
- Vehicle spawn times should also reflect the above. Having a power tank respawn in less than 20s at a node makes it really hard to move forward. Times can be shorter at the cores vs. nodes to reflect "drive time"
- Flyers should be placed on maps with the understanding that Flyers change map dynamics as they work more in 3D, and ignore terrain, and are hard to hit.
- Any power vehicles should have a mirror (eg. both teams get a mino) and one or more counters (bio tank/badger vs. Levis for example), or Anti-air when there's a bunch of flyers.
Minus-Kitchensink is a good bad example....it breaks several of these rules. Now I think we will keep it as its quite the favorite, but we don't really want maps going in that direction (if you disagree speak up). MassD is another, although some recent changes by Rhamp IMO make the map much better... but it still needs some vehicle mix work.
This is subject to community input, but we need some level of creative control (and this isn't picking on map editors besides myself -- I've made a bunch of bad maps lol.), and consistency for good play. If there's things you feel strongly about speak up.
New Maps will be reviewed before they are placed on the server. This will likely slow down new maps and that's ok. We want to make sure new maps, especially with new vehicles get adaquetly tested before playing.
We also have too many maps in the list that makes it hard to find and vote for somethign before the vote is well underway.... some less popular and/or broken maps will be archived for later updates.
First I'll start with a Vision:
The goal is to have maps that are playable, require a bit of teamwork and strategy, don't end up in pure spamfests (except say for SpamBox!). Preserve some of the classic Favorites, as well as newer Favorites and add new content that "fits". Maps can be vehicle heavy (Minus), or more infantry based (Masterbath)
What doesn't fit?
- Maps that are OP vehicle spamfests. The goal here is not to turn this into a spammy server (eg. RMD/MIA, and my apologies to those servers they have a different style of play than what we want here..).
- Maps that are overrun by a single player or single vehicle (think Omega on Torlan).
- Maps where comebacks are pretty much impossible no matter the palyers/vehicle loadout
- Maps that stalemate, that are nearly impossible to get to the core.
- Maps that have "technical" glitches or too many exploits
And what makes a "good" map?
- Balanced play on both sides, asymmetrical maps are much harder (but not impossible) to balance
- Good node layout, generally avoid single choke points, at least one "cutoff" is good.
- Balanced vehicle loadouts, too many is just as bad as too few. Any map where one player, even a top player, can "run the table" needs to have a counter
- Overall strategy vs. charge, flail, respawn, repeat (although there will be some of that).
- Foot based mostly vs. Vehicle IMO are fine. Stock Goliath becomes a bit beastly without all the other higher powered vehicles....
- Teamwork vs. individual play (LinkerMadness is good example of teamwork winning vs. just 1 great player owning the map).
With respect to vehicles -- thoughtful placement/configs:
- Too many is just as bad or worse than too few. Cores should have 8-14 vehicles (Give Rides!) More than 12 should be a careful decision, too many leads to never ending stream--can be addressed with spwan times. Nodes should have 5 or less. Vehicles are strategic and there should be NO guarantee that you don't run out of vehicles, and it should be possible for the other team to kill your power vehicles (eg. Mino) and begin the ass whooping.
- Vehicle spawn times should also reflect the above. Having a power tank respawn in less than 20s at a node makes it really hard to move forward. Times can be shorter at the cores vs. nodes to reflect "drive time"
- Flyers should be placed on maps with the understanding that Flyers change map dynamics as they work more in 3D, and ignore terrain, and are hard to hit.
- Any power vehicles should have a mirror (eg. both teams get a mino) and one or more counters (bio tank/badger vs. Levis for example), or Anti-air when there's a bunch of flyers.
Minus-Kitchensink is a good bad example....it breaks several of these rules. Now I think we will keep it as its quite the favorite, but we don't really want maps going in that direction (if you disagree speak up). MassD is another, although some recent changes by Rhamp IMO make the map much better... but it still needs some vehicle mix work.
This is subject to community input, but we need some level of creative control (and this isn't picking on map editors besides myself -- I've made a bunch of bad maps lol.), and consistency for good play. If there's things you feel strongly about speak up.
-
pooty
- Posts: 6557
- Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:22 am
- Location: Florida
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
So I propose a bit of naming convention, picking some identifiers as to they type of map
Classic - a more classic UT2004, OmnipontentS 1.0 Eg. Minus-Kamek, Minus-BadgerMeUp
DM - a more DM style (on foot map) Eg. MasterBath, Harbor, CaptGordons
Randomizer - This has randomizer vehicle Loadouts
OP - lots of power vehicles (MassD, HSH)
TMU - lots of tanks/ground vehicles (Desert JunkYard)
AP - Air Power lots of flyers (eg. Volcano high, SlatedWorld)
Now where I am torn is where to place the type.
Making it first eg:
TMU-Minus-BadgerMeUp
TMU-Minus-Kamek
DM-MasterBath
AP-SlatedWorld
Would make it easy to sort by "type", but harder to find by map name eg:
Minus-BadgerMeUp-TMU
Minus-Kamek-TMU
MasterBath-DM
SlatedWorld-AP
And what about maps that might be both, say Tyrant? Although I'd put Tryant into the DM category -- those can HAVE vehicles but you don't need one whereas in Minus/JY you won't be effective on foot.
Snarf, I think we also could make a custom voting handler that would let you filter by "SubType"? Even a simple search/snippet matching would help...too.
Thoughts?
Classic - a more classic UT2004, OmnipontentS 1.0 Eg. Minus-Kamek, Minus-BadgerMeUp
DM - a more DM style (on foot map) Eg. MasterBath, Harbor, CaptGordons
Randomizer - This has randomizer vehicle Loadouts
OP - lots of power vehicles (MassD, HSH)
TMU - lots of tanks/ground vehicles (Desert JunkYard)
AP - Air Power lots of flyers (eg. Volcano high, SlatedWorld)
Now where I am torn is where to place the type.
Making it first eg:
TMU-Minus-BadgerMeUp
TMU-Minus-Kamek
DM-MasterBath
AP-SlatedWorld
Would make it easy to sort by "type", but harder to find by map name eg:
Minus-BadgerMeUp-TMU
Minus-Kamek-TMU
MasterBath-DM
SlatedWorld-AP
And what about maps that might be both, say Tyrant? Although I'd put Tryant into the DM category -- those can HAVE vehicles but you don't need one whereas in Minus/JY you won't be effective on foot.
Snarf, I think we also could make a custom voting handler that would let you filter by "SubType"? Even a simple search/snippet matching would help...too.
Thoughts?
-
captainsnarf
- Posts: 3858
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2021 1:51 pm
- Location: Washington
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
- Contact:
Re: Map Development Process
I think the custom voting handler is doable. I have a list a mile long of stuff I'm currently working on though. Not sure if/when I could get to it, but maybe you have time? The tricky parts are the GUI. UT GUI code is an abomination 
I think the easiest fix is to put the sub category up front in the map name like you suggest, then sort the list alphabetically. Then it doesnt' need any gui changes.
I think the easiest fix is to put the sub category up front in the map name like you suggest, then sort the list alphabetically. Then it doesnt' need any gui changes.
-
Enyo
- Posts: 2445
- Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2021 11:27 pm
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: No
Re: Map Development Process
Not wanting to spend a ton more money here necessarily, but is there free or really cheap way we can get an online test server set up? I think we’d get better testing participation that way. I personally have had issues getting custom maps to be playable offline, as in sometimes they won’t even show up. I believe others have too.
Maybe NFO would work us a deal on a 2nd test server? Or an OMNI member we fully trust that has an extra computer/server they could lend us? Omni 1.0 had one that was password protected, that’s where the Wrecking Crew always tested. It prob wouldn’t need the same high performance specs of the regular server since it would never be 32 players at once. Maybe 16 max.
I’d be willing to pony up some extra cash for it, maybe others would also donate to it. We could make donors automatically part of the new Wrecking Crew. It would be better real world testing with other humans than offline with only bots.
Just an idea.
Maybe NFO would work us a deal on a 2nd test server? Or an OMNI member we fully trust that has an extra computer/server they could lend us? Omni 1.0 had one that was password protected, that’s where the Wrecking Crew always tested. It prob wouldn’t need the same high performance specs of the regular server since it would never be 32 players at once. Maybe 16 max.
I’d be willing to pony up some extra cash for it, maybe others would also donate to it. We could make donors automatically part of the new Wrecking Crew. It would be better real world testing with other humans than offline with only bots.
Just an idea.
“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain
― Mark Twain
-
YEAAAHHHHHHHHHH
- Posts: 1590
- Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2021 3:03 pm
- Server Sponsor: Yes
- Server Admin: Yes
Re: Map Development Process
I like that idea. Yeah, basically a sandbox server. I can't get maps to load either.Enyo wrote: ↑Thu May 09, 2024 12:20 pm Not wanting to spend a ton more money here necessarily, but is there free or really cheap way we can get an online test server set up? I think we’d get better testing participation that way. I personally have had issues getting custom maps to be playable offline, as in sometimes they won’t even show up. I believe others have too.
Maybe NFO would work us a deal on a 2nd test server? Or an OMNI member we fully trust that has an extra computer/server they could lend us? Omni 1.0 had one that was password protected, that’s where the Wrecking Crew always tested. It prob wouldn’t need the same high performance specs of the regular server since it would never be 32 players at once. Maybe 16 max.
I’d be willing to pony up some extra cash for it, maybe others would also donate to it. We could make donors automatically part of the new Wrecking Crew. It would be better real world testing with other humans than offline with only bots.
Just an idea.
No map cooldown period, could possibly have different rules... 32 bots etc